The biomedical model of mental disorder: A critical analysis of its validity, utility, and effects on psychotherapy research
The biomedical model of mental disorder: A critical analysis of its validity, utility, and effects on psychotherapy research
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.cpr.2012.09.007
复制
发表时间：
2013-11-01
影响因子：
12.8
通讯作者：
Deacon, Brett J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Deacon, Brett J.
生物医学模型假定精神障碍是脑部疾病，并强调针对假定的生物学异常进行药物治疗。三十多年来，以生物学为中心的科学、政策和实践方法一直主导着美国的医疗保健系统。在这段时间里，精神病药物的使用急剧增加，精神障碍通常被认为是由化学失衡引起的脑部疾病，可以用特定疾病的药物来纠正。然而，尽管人们普遍相信神经科学有可能彻底改变心理健康实践，但生物医学模型时代的特点是普遍缺乏临床创新和糟糕的心理健康结果。此外，通过在心理治疗研究中采用药物试验方法，生物医学范式深刻地影响了临床心理学。尽管这种方法刺激了许多精神障碍的经验支持的心理治疗的发展，但它忽视了治疗过程，抑制了治疗的创新和传播，并将该领域划分为科学家和从业者的界限。被忽视的生物心理社会模型代表了生物医学方法的一个有吸引力的替代方案，迫切需要就生物医学范式的有效性和实用性进行诚实和公开的对话。(C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd.版权所有。
The biomedical model posits that mental disorders are brain diseases and emphasizes pharmacological treatment to target presumed biological abnormalities. A biologically-focused approach to science, policy, and practice has dominated the American healthcare system for more than three decades. During this time, the use of psychiatric medications has sharply increased and mental disorders have become commonly regarded as brain diseases caused by chemical imbalances that are corrected with disease-specific drugs. However, despite widespread faith in the potential of neuroscience to revolutionize mental health practice, the biomedical model era has been characterized by a broad lack of clinical innovation and poor mental health outcomes. In addition, the biomedical paradigm has profoundly affected clinical psychology via the adoption of drug trial methodology in psychotherapy research. Although this approach has spurred the development of empirically supported psychological treatments for numerous mental disorders, it has neglected treatment process, inhibited treatment innovation and dissemination, and divided the field along scientist and practitioner lines. The neglected biopsychosocial model represents an appealing alternative to the biomedical approach, and an honest and public dialog about the validity and utility of the biomedical paradigm is urgently needed. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.